CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01526 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 23-01526

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date3/18/2025
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Candace Le'i Garcia
Government Counsel: Mark D. Lawton
Case Summary
The applicant in this case sought a security clearance but faced allegations under multiple adjudicative guidelines, specifically Guideline F (financial considerations), Guideline E (personal conduct), and Guideline J (criminal conduct). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) outlined concerns including the applicant's failure to file tax returns, significant delinquent debts, and a prior conviction for theft of government property.
During the proceedings, the applicant admitted to most of the allegations, including the failure to file tax returns and various debts totaling over $31,000. He attributed his financial difficulties to periods of unemployment and personal circumstances, such as being a single father. However, he did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate any resolution of his debts or to show that he had sought financial counseling. The applicant also had a history of criminal conduct, including a 2020 conviction for theft and previous incidents of fraud while in the military.
The administrative judge ruled against the applicant, concluding that he did not mitigate the security concerns related to his financial issues, personal conduct, or criminal history. The judge emphasized the applicant's lack of proactive measures to address his debts and the seriousness of his past criminal behavior, which undermined the trust necessary for access to classified information. Consequently, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance was denied.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · Against Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
- Guideline JCriminal Conduct · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-01526

deniedMar 18, 2025· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 34-year-old male applicant was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The denial stemmed from a history of financial irresponsibility, failure to file tax returns, and a conviction for theft of government property.

Specifically, the applicant failed to file both federal and state income tax returns for the 2023 tax year, which remained unfiled at the time of the decision. He also had a history of financial issues, including multiple judgments and delinquent debts exceeding $31,000. Furthermore, the applicant was convicted of misdemeanor theft of government property and had not fully paid the court-ordered restitution.

Additional concerns included falsifying information during an August 30, 2022, interview with a DOD investigator. He also received Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the UCMJ in June 2017 for providing false pull-up test results and in February 2012 for fraudulently using a roommate's debit card to purchase pizza. The judge determined that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns, citing ongoing financial distress and a pattern of dishonest behavior.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for 2023.
The applicant has a history of financial irresponsibility, including multiple judgments and delinquent debts totaling over $31,000.
The applicant was convicted of misdemeanor theft of government property and has not paid the court-ordered restitution in full.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(d)appliedDeceptive or Illegal Financial Practices
AG ¶ 31(b)appliedEvidence of Criminal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2023
Answer filedSep 8, 2023
Hearing heldJul 16, 2024via video conference
Decision dateMar 18, 2025

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility Under Guideline J
Failure to Mitigate Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E. The applicant admitted to several allegations, including a history of criminal conduct and falsification during an interview, which raised concerns about his judgment and reliability. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	He falsified information during an August 30, 2022 interview with an authorized DOD investigator about his underlying conduct.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	Claimed Acknowledgment and Remorse
2.c	In June 2017, Applicant received NJP under Article 15 of the UCMJ for providing false pull-up test results to a physical fitness monitor by stating he completed 17 when he only completed 10.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.d	In February 2012, Applicant received Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for fraudulently using the debit card of another service member, who was his then-roommate, to purchase pizza.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the financial allegations under Guideline F, specifically for failing to file federal and state income tax returns for the tax year 2023. The applicant admitted to these failures, which contributed to the decision to deny the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	You failed to file, as required, your federal income tax return for the tax year 2023. As of the date of this amendment, the tax return remains unfiled.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	You failed to file, as required, your state income tax return for the tax year 2023. As of the date of this amendment, the tax return remains unfiled.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c–1.n	12 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (10 against, 2 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—
1.o	You failed to file, as required, your federal income tax return for the tax year 2023. As of the date of this amendment, the tax return remains unfiled.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	You failed to file, as required, your state income tax return for the tax year 2023. As of the date of this amendment, the tax return remains unfiled.	Against Applicant	Tax Filing Failure	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the criminal conduct allegations, determining that the applicant's history of criminal activity raised significant concerns regarding his judgment and reliability. The applicant's conduct, including a conviction for misdemeanor theft of government property, contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant engaged in criminal activity in approximately 2007, 2012, and 2020.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.